Supreme Court to Use Panels to Decide Disciplinary Complaints
The state Supreme Court on Tuesday announced that disciplinary complaints filed against Delaware judges would be reviewed by three-member panels of the high court, and not solely by the chief justice.
March 07, 2018 at 10:01 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
Delaware State Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr.
The state Supreme Court on Tuesday announced that disciplinary complaints filed against Delaware judges would be reviewed by three-member panels of the high court, and not solely by the chief justice.
The rule change maintains Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr.'s role in deciding whether the complaints have merit, but dismissal will now require the unanimous approval of two other justices of the Supreme Court, according to a press release from Supreme Court Administrator William S. Montgomery.
Until now, only the chief justice has been responsible for screening incoming complaints. The statement, however, cited “concerns” that the old system did not reflect Delaware's bipartisan judiciary, and placed too much “pressure” on a single judge to make a decision without any input from colleagues.
“By this means, the bipartisan composition of the Delaware Judiciary will be brought to bear at all stages of the proceeding,” the statement said.
“And, as important, this collaborative approach will ensure that the judgment of three justices is brought to bear on the important question of whether a complaint against a judicial officer states a claim under the Delaware Judges' Code of Judicial Conduct.”
There was no basis to believe that a judge's political party had influenced any dismissal decision, the statement said.
Complaints determined to have merit are forwarded to a 12-member panel of attorneys and nonlawyers, which then reports its recommendations to the Court on the Judiciary. That court, made up of all five Supreme Court justices and the Judiciary's presiding judges, is responsible for final disciplinary rulings.
Francis G.X. Pileggi, member-in-charge of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, said the move was part of an administrative approach to increasing transparency for the Supreme Court.
“It's a commonsense, logical, natural way of approaching the complaints to that court, which I have to assume are small in number,” he said.
Montgomery said the Supreme Court receives “several” disciplinary complaints each month, and many of those are dismissed. Strine, he said, had been looking for ways to improve the system and involve more of his colleagues in the decision-making process.
“He just wasn't comfortable with that,” Montgomery said.
“It gives three people the chance to look at it and not just one.”
The rules applied only to judicial officers and not members of the Delaware bar generally. Complaints against attorneys are referred to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bar Report - Dec. 23
- 2Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 3The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 4Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 5For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250